Meh, 6 months ago this CPU was a good budget option, but now it just gets smashed by the Pentium G3258. Even in multi threaded tasks...

Do we have any benchmarks for evidence?

So at the lowest cost a stock G3258 with H81 mobo gets beat buy overclocked 750K.

At the higher and you think a G3258 with Z87 and stock cooler will beat a FX-6300 with updated cooler? I'm not convinced well apart from single threaded itunes tests!

I've seen overclocked results for the G3258 up to 6.8GHz but with liquid nitrogen and only running a single core. I think the main issue with the G3258 will be pairing it up with a motherboard. AMD still looks cheaper for the performance.

The PC I am using at the moment has had this processor installed for 6 months now.

I have no complaints and can use Adobe Photoshop & all of my other apps with ease, play the odd game (even the latest Wolfenstein was perfectly acceptable with a HD 7870) and the system feels fluid & stable.

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

For low power better off with a cheap quadcore AMD AM1 platform (£25~ mobo + £40 quadcore cpu), or the integrated Intel J1900 platform for around £60-£70, the AMD setup is rated 25W, the Intel J1900 quad rated 10W with far weaker iGPU.

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

Meh, 6 months ago this CPU was a good budget option, but now it just gets smashed by the Pentium G3258. Even in multi threaded tasks...

Do we have any benchmarks for evidence?

So at the lowest cost a stock G3258 with H81 mobo gets beat buy overclocked 750K.

At the higher and you think a G3258 with Z87 and stock cooler will beat a FX-6300 with updated cooler? I'm not convinced well apart from single threaded itunes tests!

I aren't convinced either, this fx 6300 can be overclocked massively with a half- decent cooler even the 212 Evo.

This is probably the g3258 overclocked with a cooler costing hundreds of pounds on a motherboard costing hundreds more.

ASUS are allowing people to OC now on H and B series boards now. Plus even a cheap Z97 board at ~£70 could OC the Pentium decently.

These liquid coolers reported to have been used on good overclocks cost hundreds, plus it' 2 cores.

You don't need full loop water cooling to OC the Pentium. A Hyper 212 would easily suffice.

nyasham

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

They're still stuck at 28nm, Intel are at 22nm. Plus Intel has done stuff like move the VRM on-die amongst other things. AMD doesn't have the budget to research into these advances.

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

This is an FX series which is AMD's range of most powerful CPUs, they're faster than AMD's APU's but don't have GPU's built in. The simple fact is that AMD's CPU architecture which is an evolution of Bulldozer architecture isn't as good as Intel's. AMD will be trying to rectify that in the next couple of years.

I appreciate the advice but that's not what I was asking. I Just wondered in general how power hungry AMD CPUs are compared to Intel. The TDP ratings are typically the maximum power a CPU will consume under heavy load so curious to know if their real world power use under "normal" and idle loads are actually similar

I appreciate the advice but that's not what I was asking. I Just wondered in general how power hungry AMD CPUs are compared to Intel. The TDP ratings are typically the maximum power a CPU will consume under heavy load so curious to know if their real world power use under "normal" and idle loads are actually similar

This is an FX series which is AMD's range of most powerful CPUs, they're faster than AMD's APU's but don't have GPU's built in. The simple fact is that AMD's CPU architecture which is an evolution of Bulldozer architecture isn't as good as Intel's. AMD will be trying to rectify that in the next couple of years.

Fair play. I thought I may have been missing something since spec sheets don't always show the whole picture. Thanks

Meh, 6 months ago this CPU was a good budget option, but now it just gets smashed by the Pentium G3258. Even in multi threaded tasks...

Do we have any benchmarks for evidence?

So at the lowest cost a stock G3258 with H81 mobo gets beat buy overclocked 750K.

At the higher and you think a G3258 with Z87 and stock cooler will beat a FX-6300 with updated cooler? I'm not convinced well apart from single threaded itunes tests!

I aren't convinced either, this fx 6300 can be overclocked massively with a half- decent cooler even the 212 Evo.

This is probably the g3258 overclocked with a cooler costing hundreds of pounds on a motherboard costing hundreds more.

ASUS are allowing people to OC now on H and B series boards now. Plus even a cheap Z97 board at ~£70 could OC the Pentium decently.

These liquid coolers reported to have been used on good overclocks cost hundreds, plus it' 2 cores.

You don't need full loop water cooling to OC the Pentium. A Hyper 212 would easily suffice.

nyasham

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

They're still stuck at 28nm, Intel are at 22nm. Plus Intel has done stuff like move the VRM on-die amongst other things. AMD doesn't have the budget to research into these advances.

Meh, 6 months ago this CPU was a good budget option, but now it just gets smashed by the Pentium G3258. Even in multi threaded tasks...

Do we have any benchmarks for evidence?

So at the lowest cost a stock G3258 with H81 mobo gets beat buy overclocked 750K.

At the higher and you think a G3258 with Z87 and stock cooler will beat a FX-6300 with updated cooler? I'm not convinced well apart from single threaded itunes tests!

I aren't convinced either, this fx 6300 can be overclocked massively with a half- decent cooler even the 212 Evo.

This is probably the g3258 overclocked with a cooler costing hundreds of pounds on a motherboard costing hundreds more.

ASUS are allowing people to OC now on H and B series boards now. Plus even a cheap Z97 board at ~£70 could OC the Pentium decently.

These liquid coolers reported to have been used on good overclocks cost hundreds, plus it' 2 cores.

You don't need full loop water cooling to OC the Pentium. A Hyper 212 would easily suffice.

nyasham

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

They're still stuck at 28nm, Intel are at 22nm. Plus Intel has done stuff like move the VRM on-die amongst other things. AMD doesn't have the budget to research into these advances.

Yeah but not to get over 5ghz, surely it would overheat and throttle.

I've seen results of 4.6GHz and 4.7GHz on the stock cooler. They might get close to 5 but they'll not get much further than that. I didn't say the Pentium would be easing over 5GHz.

It'll all depend on the silicon lottery though as to how well they clock. Not all chips are created equal.

Meh, 6 months ago this CPU was a good budget option, but now it just gets smashed by the Pentium G3258. Even in multi threaded tasks...

Do we have any benchmarks for evidence?

So at the lowest cost a stock G3258 with H81 mobo gets beat buy overclocked 750K.

At the higher and you think a G3258 with Z87 and stock cooler will beat a FX-6300 with updated cooler? I'm not convinced well apart from single threaded itunes tests!

I aren't convinced either, this fx 6300 can be overclocked massively with a half- decent cooler even the 212 Evo.

This is probably the g3258 overclocked with a cooler costing hundreds of pounds on a motherboard costing hundreds more.

ASUS are allowing people to OC now on H and B series boards now. Plus even a cheap Z97 board at ~£70 could OC the Pentium decently.

These liquid coolers reported to have been used on good overclocks cost hundreds, plus it' 2 cores.

You don't need full loop water cooling to OC the Pentium. A Hyper 212 would easily suffice.

nyasham

Judging from benchmark sites' data, why are AMD CPUs always so power hungry? As much as I want to get one, the equivalent Intel CPU almost always has a 40-60% lower TDP.

If I were to go for a CPU at this price point it would be for an always-on HTPC / Server type setup so power efficiency would be a huge deal. Do AMD CPUs mostly use that extra juice for their integrated GPUs when needed or are they constantly draining more even for menial tasks?

They're still stuck at 28nm, Intel are at 22nm. Plus Intel has done stuff like move the VRM on-die amongst other things. AMD doesn't have the budget to research into these advances.

Yeah but not to get over 5ghz, surely it would overheat and throttle.

I've seen results of 4.6GHz and 4.7GHz on the stock cooler. They might get close to 5 but they'll not get much further than that. I didn't say the Pentium would be easing over 5GHz.

It'll all depend on the silicon lottery though as to how well they clock. Not all chips are created equal.

In the Toms Hardware review,a Core i3 is faster in almost all games tested,having better frametimes too.

An FX6300(especially when overclocked) is at least Core i3 level performance in more multi-threaded games(maybe even more).

The consoles have 8 low power X86 cores,and as the XBox One and PS4 become the major dev platforms for many games,you will start to see more and more games thread well. The engines made for these consoles thread well - BOTH Mantle and DX12 are designed to thread well.

The G3258 has it uses for certain games based on older engines(like WoT),but unless you are looking at an interim CPU,IMHO in the next 6 to 18 months we are going to see more games struggle on it as time progresses.

Look at Planetside 2 for example. It started off with hogging one to two threads.

But then SOE decided to make a PS4 version,and in the last 9 months numerous performance patches game out with improved multi-threading significantly.

Years ago,there was a great stuggle on PC tech forums regarding the E8400 dual core and Q6600 quad core. Both overclocked and at stock the E8400 had a significant single threaded advantage at times - yet the Q6600 won out in the end.

The Q6600 is a legendary CPU. Not saying the Haswell Core i3 of FX6300 will hit such levels,but still there is a precedence for all this.

It makes more sense to go with a Core i3 now,or the FX6300 dependent on the type of games you play.

The G3258 will be great for games like WoT for example,but its not the panacea for all your budget gaming needs.

Really don't think half the people on here have ever built a computer. You can OC the G3258 on H87, which means no extra mobo costs. On stock cooling someone pushed this to a stable 4.5ghz. I don't know what people are on about with 'coolers costing hundreds of pounds' lol you can get a good water cooler for £40. A 212 evo is £25 and the CPU itself is £50 which puts it on the pricepoint of this (which requires aftermarket cooling) Even on highly threaded games like Arma 3 the g3258 performs admirably while the fx6300 is dreadful on urban areas of arma3/dayz. The best reason to go for the Pentium, however is that you can upgrade to i5/Xeon/i7. What will the 6300 upgrade to? The already ancient FX8350? Or the electricity greed 9590? AMD have abandoned the platform, so should we.